Christians Must Obey the Laws - But Which Ones?

Graham’s trip to Moscow raised some hard questions we, too, need to answer.

Billy graham’s recent trip to Russia brought a number of issues into sharp focus for evangelicals. Not the least of these is the question of the Christian’s relationship to his government—especially if his government is autocratic and anti-Christian. For example: What do we think of the woman who illegally unfurled a banner in the Moscow Baptist Church to protest the imprisonment of pastors? Do Russian Christians have the right to refuse to register for worship services because they fear government control of their pastors and of their message? Ought Christians to instruct their children in biblical faith when flatly forbidden to do so by the law of the land?

Most Americans have not done much serious thinking about these matters. From one point of view, we can be thankful for this. Although we live in a country that cannot truthfully be called Christian, yet our nation has been greatly influenced by the biblical and Christian tradition. As a result, many of the excruciating decisions facing Christians in other lands have never arisen for us.

But this comfortable way of living the Christian life may not continue forever. The Bible promises religious persecution of horrible intensity. If we take the Bible seriously, we must be prepared to make some of the hard decisions Christians in less-favored lands have always had to make. Even now we dare not relax too much in our relatively free society. Christians looking at us from other nations see us in a different light. “How,” inquires the Japanese Christian, “do you American Christians ever find it possible to drop an atomic bomb on the center of a great city filled with innocent people? Does your Christian conscience allow you to incinerate tens of thousands of unarmed civilians and terrorize with pain and fright tens of thousands more?”

We too, then, need to examine with an informed Christian conscience our relationships to our own government. Have we been so lulled into moral lethargy by a Christian heritage that we do not see the sharp line between obedience to God and obedience to man?

Generally, Christians have met this issue with an easy answer drawn from a fundamental principle enunciated by our Lord: we are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we are to render unto God what is God’s. By that he meant that usually we must obey our government. In most cases there is no conflict between obedience to the state and our Christian conscience. But when a human law conflicts with the law of God, then we must obey God. The apostle Peter declared this principle at his trial before the Sanhedrin: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

We call this an easy answer not because it is easy to obey; it is often very difficult to obey. Obedience may cost us our lives. But we can easily see that if we are always to obey our government unless its laws contradict the explicit commands of God, well-taught Christians will seldom have difficulty in knowing what is right. Their great problem would be in doing what they clearly know to be right.

But all too often in our complex modern world it is exceedingly difficult to know when we must choose between obedience to God and obedience to our government. For example, the Russians are not told that they cannot worship God. If that were the case, the issue would be clear cut, and every Christian would know he must disobey the law. Rather, the Russian Christians are told that if they choose to worship God, they must meet in a particular place at a particular time, they must register their meeting with the government and the atheist government must approve their pastor, and they must not speak derogatorily of their Communist government. Ought they to obey or disobey such a law?

As we all know, the Christian consciences of our Russian brothers and sisters in Christ are sharply divided over this issue. They know well that this regulation limits their freedom to bear an effective witness to the gospel in their land. But neither is there any biblical law that explicitly forbids their acquiesence to these onerous demands of their government.

Clearly, to obey God we must sometimes disobey our government. But how can we tell which human laws we must disobey in order to remain faithful to God?

Martin luther king on one occasion gave a simple solution: good laws are to be obeyed, but bad laws are to be disobeyed. So Henry Thoreau, over 150 years ago, disobeyed the law by refusing to pay his taxes because he would not support a government that condoned slavery. In World War II, the family of Corrie Ten Boom disobeyed the law by hiding and protecting Jews. So some Christians today refuse to pay taxes because they think it is wrong to support a military build-up to prepare our nation for war.

Yet, our Lord instructed his followers to pay taxes to an oppressive regime that conquered the Jewish nation and held it in subjection by force. He did not suggest that his followers should disobey the oppressive and unjust law that allowed a soldier to commandeer any civilian to carry his baggage for one mile along the highway. Quite the contrary, he urged them to go two miles. And Romans 13 tells us that every soul is to be subject to the authorities, for governments are ordained of God: “Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves” (NKJV).

In historical fact, of course, governments come into power through various means, mostly by military conquest. But all secure their authority under the providence of God. Christians, therefore, are to accept their rule as divinely authorized. Specific governments may well be manmade, but they are also ordained by a divine providence for our good, and it is our Christian God-given duty to obey them. The apostle Peter thus declares: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of those who do good.” Then he adds the significant words: “When you do good and suffer for it, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God” (1 Peter 2:13–14, 20).

In short, the Christian is commanded by God to obey an evil government that secured its control illegitimately by conquest. He is also to obey governmental authorities, including their unjust laws or good laws unjustly administered. The rule is: governments are to be obeyed. Accordingly, the Bible gives us many examples showing approval of obedience even to bad laws.

Christians, of course, are always opposed to bad laws. As citizens they will do whatever they can to eliminate them. In democratic countries like ours there is much that a citizen can do. Moreover, in a democracy the Christian citizen makes the laws, and therefore, God will hold him partially accountable for whatever laws are passed. The Bible is abundantly clear as to the responsibility of those who make our laws. Romans 13 tells us that they are to be a terror to evil and not to good works. A government official is “the minister of God” for good. (See also 1 Peter 2:14.) Insofar as he can, the Christian’s duty is to work for good laws and for their just enforcement.

But when the Christian has worked against bad laws, and voted against them, he will still normally obey them.

At the same time, the Bible also approves of disobedience to bad laws. For example, the people intervened to save Jonathan from the condemnation of King Saul (1 Sam. 14:45). Similarly, the servants of the king delivered Ahimelech from an unjust condemnation (1 Sam. 22:17–23). Both of these instances represent nonviolent disobedience to those in authority. The Old Testament also adds many references to what clearly seems to be violent rejection of authority, but still ethically approved in the scriptural record (see 1 Kings 21; 2 Kings 9:1ff; 2 Kings 11:1ff; 2 Kings 14:19; and Jeremiah 21:3–7). And who does not remember the brave disobedience of Daniel and his friends for which they were thrown into the fiery furnace?

In view of the strong exhortations to obey the government, some Christians have argued that one must never disobey a law unless it is in direct conflict with a specific command of Scripture. On this basis, some Russian Christians would disobey the law that forbids them to instruct their own children in the faith because the Bible directly commands them to do the contrary. On the other hand, they would not refuse to register their place of worship because the Bible does not specifically command them not to do so. We must worship God, but nowhere are we commanded to worship God in a particular place, or forbidden supervision by the government.

Many other Christians—particularly the English Puritans—have argued that obedience to God requires that one must do good to all human beings and seek their welfare (both eternal welfare and welfare in this life). The specific function of government for which it was ordained of God, and which represents the basis whereby we must obey it, is that it puts down the evil and rewards the good. If a government ceases to function in its legitimate sphere, then it forfeits its right to demand obedience as part of our obedience to God. When that happens, a government ceases to be a legitimate government. The Christian obedient to God is not necessarily obligated in every case to obey an illegitimate government.

In most cases, it is clear that disobedience to an illegitimate government or a bad law will, in the long run, bring more harm to people than obedience. That is why Scripture teaches us that as a rule we must obey even bad laws.

But as we have seen, Scripture also makes plain that it is a Christian’s duty to disobey some bad laws that are terribly destructive of human justice and human freedom—particularly religious freedom. In such cases, the Christian may not be able to point to a specific command of Scripture (e.g., to make copies of the Bible or to worship in groups larger than five persons). Still, a Christian may well conclude that a law is so restrictive of his spiritual duties that for the sake of his own soul and the spiritual health of others he must disobey it to be faithful to God.

When a Christian thinks he has come to such an impasse, it behooves him always to examine carefully his own motives. He must always reckon with his own ego to make sure he is disobeying the law for the good of others and not merely gratifying himself on an ego trip. And especially, he must reckon with the harm done to society by the breakdown in law and order his disobedience would bring. He must be assured, particularly in a lawless society, that he is not adjusting his conscience to worldly disregard of authority but is guided by truly biblical principles and the command of God to love all people and to seek their best good.

It is rarely good for a Christian to disobey even a bad law. That is why the Scripture so frequently urges Christians to obey even evil governments and laws that create trouble for them. Still, there are times when a Christian becomes thoroughly convinced that the total welfare of others would be significantly better if he disobeyed rather than obeyed a particular law. When that moment arrives, he must obey God rather than man. God has commanded him to be concerned for the well-being of all human beings, and the well-being of human beings demands disobedience to that particular law at that particular time.

The Christian in such a case must humbly, yet boldly, and with a prayer to God for forgiveness if he has judged wrongly, disobey the law—and be willing to suffer the full consequences of his disobedience.

In taking that drastic step the Christian must beware of false pride, thinking that he is wholly good and that all other Christians obeying the law are cowards and disobedient to God. According to the Bible, all of us are sinners in the sense that we fall short of the absolute perfection of our Lord. And such decisions are not easy. We must be prepared to allow our fellow Christians to arrive at a different conclusion. Especially, we must not allow their decision to destroy our love and unity in Christ.

Missions Funding In The Jaws Of A Recession

How is the missionary enterprise faring during the recessionary period in a North America that provides much of its funding?

The overall picture is somber, but hardly desperate. Giving has held steady or declined slightly over the past year. Had domestic inflationary pressures been higher they would have precipitated a crisis; but inflation has been virtually wrung out of the U.S. economy. While inflation continues to soar in most areas overseas, a strengthened U.S. dollar allows each one that is contributed to buy more local currency abroad. Worldwide inflation has therefore been offset by an increased dollar value—at least for now.

Looking at giving by categories reveals more than global figures, and shows how the economic doldrums are affecting evangelization worldwide. During a financial drop, giving for a mission’s administrative costs or general fund is typically hit first. Support for missionary ministries and projects—the work missionaries are involved in—is affected next. Most immune to retrenchment is the personal support of missionaries.

Actual experience is following this scenario for most mission boards. For example, SIM International’s financial manager, Eldon Howard, reports that general fund giving to SIM was down 16 percent in May compared to a year earlier, while ministry and project giving was about the same, and missionary personal support was up about 15 percent. Others cited figures that show a more pessimistic outlook. The Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission Society, for instance, reports that its income is off from 10 to 12 percent compared to last year’s figure.

What statistics such as these don’t reveal is a great deal of human drama. Ron Brett, assistant director of the Evangelical Alliance Mission, says, “We’re getting quite a few churches and individuals writing in and telling us they are going through difficult times, but they are trying to do their best to keep up with their [faith] promises.”

Personnel secretaries report that it is taking approved candidates an average of two or three months longer to obtain their required support than it used to. What formerly may have taken nine months of representation in churches now requires a year.

Effects of the economic doldrums on the numbers of new volunteers appear mixed. Some boards are getting more applicants. Said one mission official, “When some of the career options begin to dry up, many people become more willing to listen to what God has to say to them.” Other missions have found attendance at their candidate schools adversely affected because prospects are thinking twice before relinquishing even a fill-in job.

This climate does suggest some budgetary strategies for the local church.

• General fund support for the boards under which missionaries serve might be considered. Missionaries’ effectiveness would be drastically affected, even curtailed, without support functions.

• A church could think in terms of supporting missionary ministries. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to field a large number of fully salaried missionaries who have no funds for the work at their disposal.

• There was never a better time for churches to give new candidates a break. A congregation’s own young people (or early retirees) should receive at least half their support from their home church.

• This year’s domestic inflation breather gives churches a chance to play catch-up. This is especially true in churches unable to keep up with the rapidly escalating costs of their missionaries over the last five or six years.

A tight economy, after all, provides a strong stimulus for reevaluation of priorities. It’s an ill wind that blows no good. And the need for the gospel is never in recession.

Others Say

A Congressman’s View of Kingdom Building

Christians are not expected to make or conduct foreign policy [or domestic policy, either, we would add], but they can influence that policy. They can and should be the conscience in a nation’s official dealings with other countries.

Here are a few practical suggestions on how Christians can meet the challenge of influencing [political] decisions.

First, Christians must be true to themselves—that is, stand for the right set of moral and absolute values [that are] inherent in Scripture. Christ gives us his vision: “You are the world’s light—a city on a hill, glowing in the night for all to see. Don’t hide your light! Let it shine for all; let your good deeds glow for all to see so that they will praise your heavenly Father” (Matt. 5:14–16, LB).

Second, there is a saying around the corridors in Washington that “the only thing that keeps us upright is equal pressure on all sides.” Recognizing that many factors go into public policy making, there must be constant pressure for moral and ethical values, or they will be quickly discarded in favor of other policy imperatives. Christians ought to keep pressure on policy makers to do what’s right rather than what’s expedient. Let’s keep the State Department upright.

Third, Christians have at their disposal various ways of getting the message across, from passing resolutions to joining in protest marches. “Write your Congressman” is more than an adage—it still works. On world hunger programs alone, there are a number of bills pending before Congress. Hearing from constituents and church groups on these and other issues does count.

Fourth, beyond influencing public policy, Christians can and should be more directly involved. Amid the immense suffering in the Horn of Africa, Christian groups shine like the “house on the hill.” World Vision, World Relief, World Concern, Catholic Relief, to name a few, are helping and ministering where it is needed the most. Christ’s ambassadors are at work, saving lives and souls.

Fifth, we need personal commitment. We cannot escape our responsibility by relying solely on institutions, public or religious. One person can make a difference. But Christ working through a person or group can work miracles.

I am reminded of that extraordinary Englishman, William Wilberforce, who dared to question the slave trade and whose personal commitment of 25 years finally brought an end to that hideous practice. Wilberforce and his close friend, William Pitt, were both elected to Parliament at age 21, and Pitt went on to become prime minister at 24. However, it was not Pitt the statesman but Wilberforce the Christian who changed the course of history in the late nineteenth century.

I have seen the same results in Washington, D.C. The State Department stumbled badly in trying to reconcile the feud between the presidents of Kenya and Somalia. But a Christian brother brought the two together through prayer, ending traditional animosity between the two countries.

In South Africa, there are no political or policy solutions that I know of, yet I see hope through black and Afrikaner leaders who have personal faith and can relate on that basis.

I have taken on a new project in the House to get members of Congress interested in at least one country, to become personally acquainted with its leadership and special problems. If successful, it would do more for the cause of brotherly love and peace than any bill that passes Congress.

What are you prepared to do? How can God use you to make this a better world?

God’s State Department is the best in the business. As ambassadors for Christ, we can build a kingdom worthy of his name.

CONGRESSMAN DON BONKER

Washington State Third District

Supreme Reason Threatens The Soviets

A leading Soviet writer has come under sharp attack for suggesting ever so timidly that there might be a God.

Vladimir A. Soloukhin, Soviet poet and essayist who has been a Communist party member for 30 years, expressed the view in a widely read literary journal last year that “in the twentieth century, there is no doubt for every reasonable person that a supreme reason exists in the world, in the universe, in life.”

The suggestion, mild as it was, runs counter to the official state theology of the Soviet Union—atheism—and won Soloukhin a scolding from no less a journal than Kommunist, the theoretical and political monthly of the Soviet party …

The fact he has been criticized in a high-level journal such as Kommunist may be a warning to other writers and cultural figures whose opinions do not coincide with official Communist scripture.

People in the Soviet Union are allowed to think what they please, of course, but the only opinions that can be expressed publicly—or published—are those that conform to the official materialistic view that the world is governed by immutable scientific principles, the chief of which happens to be Marxism-Leninism. In his essay, which appeared in the literary monthly Nash Sovremenik, Soloukhin never uses the word “God” or discusses religion.…

Soloukhin says that to deny the existence of a higher reason would be to argue that such “complicated and precise organisms as a flower, a bird, a human being and, finally, a human brain, appeared at random—the result of a lucky, blind and unprogrammed combination of chemical elements.

“The question,” he concludes, “is not whether a supreme reason exists, but whether it knows about me and has anything to do with me.”

ANTHONY BARBIERI, JR.

Baltimore Sun

Used by permission

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.